Tuesday, 11 December 2012

"This article was published in Praxis,
Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar, and is reproduced herein with the kind
permission of their Editor"

How
technology can help your legal practice.

by Jason
Kay

The
landscape of legal practice has changed significantly with the introduction of
new technology.From manual typewriters
to electric ones to computers, and the corresponding development of sending
information by post or fax and now email, the law office of today is vastly
different from that of 30 years ago when many of our current senior
practitioner were just coming out of law school.It may be virtually unrecognizable 30 years
from now with the speed technology and science are progressing.

But for
now, do take a few minutes from your busy day, and allow me to share with you
what changes you can incorporate into your practice that may yield benefits
many times over.

The essentials.

Your hand/mobile phone:

Unless you have a legacy phone which you only
use to make calls and handle SMS, yours will probably be a smartphone.Smartphones are phones which are essentially
mini-computers.If you have this, you
have a treasure in your hands.Your
smartphone can access the internet, your emails, and most allow you to do
editing on the soft copy of your documents.Researching and having access to the wealth of information all over the
internet with your smartphone is no longer the stuff of science fiction - it is
almost as if you have the Star Trek ship’s computer with you at all times.

When used
properly (and in tandem with a good legal assistant/personal
assistant/paralegal/secretary/clerk back at your office - I’ll use the word
“clerk” to denote the whole group from now on), your smartphone can save you
valuable time.

For
example, when attending court, you do not have to bring your physical
diary.Your diary can be online,
synchronized on the ‘cloud[1]’ and
accessible to your clerk to monitor.You
can easily view several diaries (for example the diaries of other lawyers in
your firm, or lawyers that you are working with on a particular case, if they
grant you viewing access) at once to avoid scheduling conflicts.

After
court, while in the canteen or on your way back to your office or your next
meeting (I assume you have a driver or take public transport), you can dictate
your report letters to your clerk to prepare the draft for you.That draft can then be emailed to you to
check and sign - digitally - without you having to make the trip back to your
office.On days with back-to-back
meetings and/or emergencies, this keeps you productive and this minor, but
important, work which will not fall through the cracks and be delayed.

Your computer:

In today’s practice, if you do not have a
very capable clerk, you should already have more than a basic working knowledge
of word processing software, usually either MSWord or OpenOffice.Beyond the basic typing and printing, you
should already know (or soon learn) how to:

format
your document (using tabs, margin stops, and tables),

use
mail merge (useful if you do bulk work with standard-form-type documents),

index
your document (with foot/end-notes for a more eye-catching written
submission), and

Why should you bother learning all the above?Well, as a lawyers, our main (if not only)
asset is our ideas.It stands to reason
that we should put down our fee-generating ideas in a readable (and, if
possible, stylish) manner.MSWord/OpenOffice is a tool.If we
learn to use it well, the time and effort invested will more than pay for
itself in the long run.

Your fax machine:

Almost all offices would have a normal fax
machine.They generally come in 3
different versions (from basic to advanced) which are: thermal paper,
ink-jet/carbon paper, and powder/laser print.What you should consider getting/adding to your office is an AIO
(all-in-one) machine which combine 3 or more of the following functions: fax,
print, scan, email.With AIOs, you will
be able to take advantage of the “scan” function.This is essential in the process of
digitizing your files so that you can have easy access to it wherever you are
without actually having to lug the thick heavy physical files.Just make sure you get one with a scan
function that includes OCR (optical character recognition).This will help a lot when you do your getting
up on the digitized documents.

Putting it together:Convergence and Synergy.

Convergence
is a wonderful word that means "the sum is greater than the
parts."Synergy is another word
describing a similar concept.What you
already have (handphone, AIO, and computer) can work wonderfully to improve
your practice, and ultimately, the quality of your life.You just need to start using them together to increase their benefit
manyfold.

How you
can specifically do so is, unfortunately, beyond the ambit of this introductory
article.

The iPad.

One other
item that you should serious consider adding to your toolbox is the Apple iPad
(or any other tablet with similar capabilities).I have written on how the iPad can improve
your practice - “Using the iPad in your legal practice”[2].

In brief,
the iPad is vastly superior to your computer/laptop when getting up a
matter.Reading from it is a joy.There is hardly a boot-up delay which allows
you to almost instantly put your ideas down in writing.You can write on it with your finger or a
stylus, and if you prefer to type, it’s a simple matter of adding a wireless
keyboard.

Conducting
trials with the iPad is possible - I have managed to do so with an iPad and a
laptop (to take down notes), and with the physical file on the table, just in
case.

PDF - a special mention.

PDF is
the acronym for “portable document format”.In plain-speak, it means what you see on the computer monitor is what
you will see when you print it.This is
a powerful format which will be very necessary when you start working with your
digitized files.Working with PDFs
require specialize programmes to fully harness its benefits.For your computer, you should purchase
“NitroPDF”[3](USD119.99)
and on the iPad, the app “PDF Expert”[4]
(USD9.99).

Why should you digitize
your files?

By
digitizing your files and putting them on the cloud, they are available to you
wherever you go.This allows you to
literally have all your office files, and your whole library[5], with
you at all times.You will be able to do
that urgent work while on holiday (if absolutely necessary), or not.You now have a choice,
unlike in days of yore when a holiday really means being cut off.What if an important and simple task that can
greatly benefit your practice (but needs to be done immediately) comes along
while you are on holiday?Would you not
be glad that you had the tools and the ability to take that few hours and get
the job done?I would.

Is this
change to the landscape of legal practice good?Absolutely.The legal profession
is a service industry.The only
difference with the other players in this industry is that we are professionals
in the truest sense of the word, dealing with very complex and difficult issues
and we have very high ethical standards.At our core, we assist people in what is usually the darkest hours, or
the most trying/momentous time, in their lives.Having the tools and ability to work faster, more efficiently, and
effectively is always a good thing.

The
learning curve of what I have described in the foregoing is not too steep - it
takes 3-8 weeks to master.After about 2
months, you should be able to start seeing tremendous results.

The key
is to keep practicing to use the tools you already have together.Good luck with your
practice.

And this should be
mentioned:Do not play (too many) games
on your handphone/iPad.They are a waste
of time.A little bit, yes.But not too much.Time is precious

[1]“Cloud” here is used to mean the storage
space for data that is stored on a server connected to the internet and
accessible from various devices which have internet access.

[5] if you digitize your
books, or subscribe to the online legal reports - do note that there are a
wealth of free resources out there, some examples being http://www.kehakiman.gov.my, http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my, and statutes - just go to
Google and type in this search string, “(name of Act)
site:agc.gov.my” without the double quotation marks, and you
should be able to download the pdf version of the statute as at 2006.

Friday, 2 November 2012

This is something written by a fan, quite soon after watching the movie. Just fun writing.

Jason

02 November 2012

========================

Watching a Bond movie is like revisiting an old friend, driving
through a long-remembered road and discovering that although the clothes
may be different, or the scenery has changed somewhat, it still evokes
that same old feeling once the conversation starts, or the windows are
let down and the country air breezes rushes through your hair. It's
nostalgia and discovery. SKYFALL, the latest chapter in the
life of Bond, the 3rd in the re-booted canon, and the 23rd in the
official canon, does quite well in delivering a good action adventure
story, by any standard. But what stands out are the thoughtful nods
given to the movies that came before it.

The obvious ones are clear enough:-

the Aston Martin from GOLDFINGER, with the headlight machine-guns being used, and the ejector seat button hinted at

the villain with the funny teeth - JAWS

the reference to the exploding pen - YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

the train fight - FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

Bond dying in the opening credits - YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

jumping over the Komodo dragon - jumping across crocodiles - LIVE AND LET DIE

blowing up MI6 - THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

The less obvious ones include:-

the homing signal - GOLDFINGER

the tunnel chase reminiscent of A VIEW TO A KILL's climax

the Beretta-Walther reference - DR NO

the use of the digger so stylishly on the train in the opening credits - it reminded me of that spectacular 2 trailer truck chicken standoff in LICENCE TO KILL

villain has an island and there is a shooting contest between him Bond, sorta - THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

And this one I know it's from somewhere, but I just cannot put my finger on it - Bond and Q meeting in an art gallery looking at Turner's "The Fighting Temeraire".

Does the movie work? Well, it is terribly beautiful - the cinematography is outstanding, and the 'feel' of it reminds us of how good CASINO ROYALE really was compared to all the other movies before it. What was regrettable was probably the overly long ending which does not really make sense (Why must there be a fight of only the 3 of them against the baddies? Couldn't Bond have called in for reinforcements like, you know, the army?) But aside from that, the movie was good.

And c'mon, wasn't there at least a tinge of genuine regret that the character of Kincade was not played by Connery, for whom it was so obviously written? The line, "I was ready before you were born" before the final standoff cannot be lost to any Bond fan since Connery had already played Bond 5 times before 1968, the year Craig was born. It would have been spectacular. But alas, that was not to be.

======================

Addendum on 24 Feb 2013

Just noticed 2 others.

After the William Tell shooting
contest involving a Macallan, Bond quips about wasting it - it harkens
back to the Dom Perignon reference at the dinner with DR NO scene.

The villain has an island - echoes also of SPECTRE island in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE - where Grant gets a massage.

Saturday, 20 October 2012

I am tickled pink that your esteemed newspaper
has devoted almost daily coverage to this Alvin and Vivian saga since the story
broke.

We, as Malaysians, as Asians, can learn
a lot from all of this. For one, it
would seem that morality is very subjective.
One person’s morals are another’s fodder for scoff, or indifference. So unless there are actual physical/legal
sanctions to accompany the morality code, it would seem that the maxim that will
apply is, “to each his own”.

Two, there is an obvious disconnect
between the young and old generation, between those who believe in
individualism and those who prefer collectivism. Of course these two concepts do not entirely
overlap, but the Alvin and Vivian story is almost a perfect example of how
Malaysia has changed to a more individualistic society over the last generation
(say Gen-Y and after). The Gen-Xers, and
those before, don’t see, or don’t want to see, this. But it’s happening. We can pooh-pooh all we want, but things have
changed.

The writing, or rather the “erotic blog”, is already on the wall. One of your articles, “Young ones see no harm in erotic postings,” already shows hints of this. The young, having grown up in the highly sexualised environment of the Hilton, Kardashian, Edison Chen and numerous other sex scandals see it as ‘no biggie’. Their parents, of course, see it as nothing less than scandalous[True to form, Vivian’s mother gives the standard “when confronted with shame” ultimatum: Get married or get out.]. Added to this is the almost blasé attitude of Alvin and Vivian about the whole matter - they had sex on their first meeting, photography started at the second encounter, and they don’t care what others think [Alvin’s thoughts, and Vivian’s thoughts]. This is a powerful knife into the heart of proponents, or ‘guardians’ if you like, of normal “Asian values”. All that can be hurled back at Alvin and Vivian is, possibly, the long arm of the law, or something similar - like the MCMC (Malaysian Communications And Multimedia Commission) asking that the radio interview with the two be postponed.

Is that it?

Is force the only way to deal with
unwelcomed change? The attitude seems to
be wait-and-see. Wait-and-see if Alvin
says something wrong. Wait-and-see the
outcome of the NUS disciplinary hearing.
Wait-and-see if there is enough groundswell to fortuitously bring to
bear on Alvin and Vivian the realities of life - the “I told you so” moment.

All this belies the fact that things
have indeed changed. For better or
worse, I cannot say. But Malaysia now is
a bit different from before this story broke.
Cold hard truths about our young are starting to be very clear.

Can we gain anything positive from
this? Yes we can. If we look pass the morality angle, and all
the other obvious points - generational clash, individualism - we can actually
see virtue in this whole saga. One of single-mindedness in the face of
guaranteed condemnation/opposition. Has
this quality not been the driving force of innovation? The example of Steve Jobs and Apple come to
mind. Innovators, leaders, visionaries,
and the like share this quality of courage against the tide, sometimes
subconsciously, sometimes purposely, ignoring the obvious road-blocks in their
path. Sometimes, new vistas do
open.

The path of change is seldom
smooth. The road, less than
certain. This is the first genuine
gauntlet thrown at Malaysia’s “Asian values morality”. Before this, all the sex tape scandals were
of the ‘leaked’ variety, i.e. the tape/photo was made for private consumption,
and then leaked by (a) third-party(ies).

But now, we have the conundrum. Two privileged youths, doing what is
absolutely shocking (to the conservative fold), enjoying it, and not a hint of
shame. And there is no outcry from the
youth of the country. Is this a sign
that Malaysia is already changing? Does
it mean our young are over-indulged pampered brats who see nothing of shaming
the families from whom they came and who gave them almost everything they
had? That’s the scared, conservative,
Asian-value talking.

Or is this a sign that there is now less
fear, less tip-toeing, over the hypersensitivity of certain people? Is this a new dawn for a more robust (and
hopefully stronger) Malaysia, one which has citizens who are able to stand out
there and say, “Here I am, this is me.
And if you don’t like me, so what?
I am still a valid person. I am
still you. I am still part of you.”

Thus far, this story has been presented
as a morality tale. Woe to us if we
don’t see it as anything more than that.

Friday, 10 August 2012

The iPad is the single best gadget you could purchase to improve your
productivity and effectiveness as a lawyer. This is from a litigation
point of view. This aim of this article is to give you a summary of
what can be done as well as to provide some guideposts should you take
the plunge and join the digital revolution.

First question: Which iPad should I get? Get the latest one with
the Retina display. Your eyes will love you for it. The price
difference between it and the iPad2 is negligible.

Next, the case / cover: You should get a good case that can double
as a stand. I use the Targus Versavu which allows the iPad to stand in
both landscape and portrait mode. This versatility is useful. A
stylus, that also contains a pen, should be added also because you’ll
still need to write on hardcopy documents, and the stylus is absolutely
necessary when you’re highlighting or underlining texts – this is
especially true if you have large fingers.

An important consideration is whether you should get the wi-fi only
version, or the one with the cellular network support. Go with the
latter unless you have wi-fi everywhere you go.

Why? Because lawyers get ideas at all times and at all places.
Having that light-bulb moment is only as good as the action you can take
after that. Certain things require instant action to achieve the
maximum effect. An important thing to note here, therefore, is that you
should subscribe to a cellular plan which only throttles your speed
when you hit your data quota – not one that cuts you off entirely. Ask
around before committing to a plan. I cannot overemphasize how crucial
this is.

Now that you have your swanky new iPad, do you jailbreak it? On
this, I fall on the ‘leave it as it is’ side of the fence. You’re a
lawyer, not a tech geek with too much time on your hands. So quit with
the experimentation and proceed from the premise that your iPad is a tool
for you to be more productive and, hopefully, richer. Not something you
want to fiddle around with. Warranty will be voided if you jailbreak
it. So my advice: Don’t.

At this point you should create a Google account. This will allow
you access to the wealth of fantastic and free services Google offers
like email, calendar, word processing, cloud-based storage, RSS reader
and maps – to name but a few. I recommend Google because it’s stable
and it has worked very well for me the past 7 years. Bonus: Google
integrates very well with the iPad’s pre-installed apps.

Your final preliminary task will be to create an Apple ID and
register your credit card so that you can buy apps from the App Store.
If you don’t want to use your regular credit card, get a prepaid one and
load it with RM300. That should be enough to purchase all the apps
that I’ll be recommending.

Free apps that you should immediately download are:-

Dropbox (cloud-based storage)

Evernote (cloud-based note-taking)

Skitch (to annotate pictures)

Skype (audio and video conferencing)

AppShopper (for alerts on price reduction for apps that you might want to buy)

Free apps that you should seriously consider downloading are:-

Facebook (social networking)

Twitter (social networking – but I use it mainly to keep in touch with breaking news)

Flipboard (news aggregator)

Zite (news aggregator)

TED (for inspirational and informative talks)

TimeCapture (for time billing)

Wikipanion (this makes Wikipedia very readable)

TripAdvisor (to book hotels and to find out where to eat when you’re out of town)

Fit It (to reduce the resolution and size of photos taken with the iPad camera)

CamScanner+ (to take photographs of documents and convert them to PDF)

ProCamera (to take photos with date and time stamps – it’s a good overall photo app)

Notability (to take notes if you like taking notes freehand with
your finger or stylus – otherwise, get the wireless Bluetooth Apple
keyboard for RM229)

Bento (only if you are very proficient with databases and want to ‘tinker’ – this is a powerful tool)

WolframAlpha (just trust me on this one)

Sleep Gadget (for logging your sleep)

Total Recall (mind mapping tool)

360 (to take panorama pictures)

Money for iPad (to keep track of your money)

How you can use and should use the apps listed above (along with the
pre-installed ones like Calendar, Notes, Reminders, Maps, Safari, Mail
and YouTube) really depend on your creativity. The key is to first
decide what you want to achieve, and then see if you can do it with the
existing apps you have. If you cannot, or if you’re stuck, you should
head over to the App Store, or do some searches on the web or the Apple
forums. Chances are, someone has encountered the same problem and may
have already found a solution / shortcut for you. Or maybe there’s an
app that does exactly what you desire. The learning curve is not steep,
but neither is it easy.

You’ll need about 3-5 weeks of constant ‘messing around’ before you
see some positive results in your practice. And it helps if you do not,
under any circumstances, download any games – Angry Birds
deserves a special mention. Playing games on the iPad will rob you
blind of what little time you have. This is the siren song. Listen to
it not.

The genius of the iPad is in its design. The touch function is
vastly superior to the way we’ve been interacting with computers –
keyboard and mouse. This tactile element is the very reason why the
iPad works so well for litigators. Our minds work both methodically and
in a free-ranging manner, depending on the problem we’re trying to
solve. The iPad assists us by nurturing both styles, in a way normal
computers simply cannot.

Imagine waking up to a half-formed strategy for a case conceived in a
dream. Do you walk to your desktop, boot it up and do your research?
You might. Do you reach for your laptop, boot it up, and do your
research? Probably, since there might be no walking involved. But if
you have an iPad by your bed, or under the pillow, ‘might’ and ‘probably
change to ‘most likely’ because there’s no boot up time, no walking,
and it’s like holding a magical piece of glass. That simple research
could be the key / catalyst that solves the issue for you. I’ve gotten
up a case in about 1-2 hours on the iPad that I know would’ve taken me
about 2-4 times longer if I had done it on my desktop or laptop. And
I’ve fallen asleep while researching / drafting more times than I can
remember. All this translates to more work done in small pockets of
time that I ‘steal’ for myself during the day. Long bus rides are no
longer for naps and listening to podcasts. They now include doing
actual work.

Let me end by giving you an example of how I use the iPad on a normal day:-

During my morning shower, I usually get most of my ideas. And it’s very easy to immediately jot them in the Calendar, Reminders, Notes, Total Recall, or Evernote (sometimes after a quick search on the web with Safari or Wikipanion) app. This is after the shower, of course.

While having breakfast, or commuting, I catch up with what’s happening socially on Facebook, and read the news via Flipboard, Zite, or Twitter, or all of them.

Let’s say on this hypothetical day, I’m going to mention a case on
behalf of an out-station lawyer. I’d have received all instructions via
email and PDF attachments. I view these with Mail and annotate them with PDF Expert. During the mention, I can take down notes with Notability, or fire up Pages,
link the keyboard, and type out the notes. These notes I can later
incorporate into my report (which I have the option of exporting as a
PDF to be signed with PDF Expert); and email to the instructing counsel.
Any hardcopy of documents that needs to be sent can first be
photographed and converted to PDF using CamScanner+. The scanned copy will take minutes to reach that out-station lawyer. The hard copy, at most, takes a day.

Getting up a case is quite simple now with most law reports available online. Safari, PDF Expert, Instapaper and Dropbox
will be your best friends in no time. Drafting of pleadings and
submissions is possible with Pages. But if you want more control of the
layout, all your work can be exported in MSWord format for final
formatting on your desktop / laptop.

Should you need to have a quick face-to-face chat, Skype (works with wi-fi and cellular connections) or FaceTime
(only works with a wi-fi connection) saves your time tremendously – no
commute, waiting or traffic jams. Just make sure you dress
appropriately, have a decent background / backdrop, and frame yourself
well.

I’ve yet to conduct a trial solely with the iPad, so I cannot comment
on this. (Of course it would be folly to so do if one doesn’t also
have the physical file on the bar table, or at least in the car boot,
just in case.)

Replacing your physical diary with the Calendar
app on the iPad is a no-brainer. Synchronization with Google Calendar
is excellent, and you have 2 free iCloud calendars. Creating and
rescheduling appointments are so simple and intuitive, you’ll never want
to work with a desk diary again.

A note about the price of apps: Depending on the maker of the app,
prices can either fluctuate greatly, slightly, or not at all. This is
where AppShopper comes in. It allows you to
follow certain apps that pique your interest, but not enough that you
would buy it immediately at its current price. All you have to do is
make a note of it, and when the price drops, AppShopper will notify you.

I’m aware that there are many other good apps that I haven’t
mentioned in this article. But I can only recommend what I’ve actually
used. I do not recommend willy-nilly. I have received no
gratification, neither in cash or in kind, from any of the product
developers / makers that I’ve recommended in this article. They’re good
products – plain and simple. And, if for some strange reason you
wish to thank me, please consider donating to a charity that has a good
administration expense ratio – Yes, this is the whole ‘pay it forward’
thing.

If you do plan to get the iPad, I wish you much fun with your new
gadget. Remember, it’s not a toy. It’s not a glorified game machine.
And it’s not only a media consumption device. It’s a money-making
machine that’s both sexy and magical.

Waze (Free GPS guide with real-time traffic statistics. Excellent)https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/waze-social-gps-traffic-gas/id323229106?mt=8Tweetbot (Twitter reader. It displays source articles in links embedded in tweets so much faster than the normal Twitter app. If you tweet, or research via tweets, a lot, this app is a must-have)https://itunes.apple.com/app/tweetbot-for-twitter-ipad/id498801050?mt=8MagicalPad (to create BEAUTIFUL workflow charts, mind maps and general notes - quite a steep learning curve)https://itunes.apple.com/app/magicalpad/id463731782?mt=8Timeli (to see all your on-going projects in a timeline)https://itunes.apple.com/app/timeli/id386890857?mt=8

Notable apps

Pocket Wavepad HD (to record audio in various formats. A good standby if you don't have a dedicated mp3 recorder)https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pocket-wavepad-hd/id418674227?mt=8Zello (walkie-talkie over IP. Less data consumption than FaceTime/Skype, easier than typing out the chats)https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/zello-walkie-talkie/id508231856?mt=8File Manager Pro (Document Reader & File Browser) (if you need to email 2 or more files, not photos, from your iPad, you need this)https://itunes.apple.com/app/id558270538?mt=8File

Notes:

After iOS 6, Personal Hotspot works for me. Pairing my laptop to the iPad gives me the almost perfect office on-the-go - have the chargers nearby, just in case.Guide to using Evernote better. Look at the "ambassador guides".

Addendum to article - 09 March 2014

This app is excellent for scanning. Only drawback is that is has no in-app OCR. Scanner Pro by Readdle

1.The prosecution has presented a formidable case of Torture and War Crime
against the 8 accused.I would like to place
on record the humility I feel at sitting across the bar table from both
prosecution counsels, Prof Nijar and Prof Boyle.Save for a few brief moments of lapse, Prof.
Nijar’s submission was thorough and devastating, and Prof Boyle was and is
perhaps the most eloquent advocate I have had the honour of listening to in
person.

2.Save for a short outburst on day 2 regarding the issue of Ali Shalal and
the photo, I have purposely maintained my composure and refrained from standing
up and down, objecting to the slightest issue that could be objected.I did this because I am reminded of my role
as amicus curiae.I am a friend of the
Tribunal, assisting it to get to the heart of the matter, by getting a broader
picture from the witnesses, and keeping the prosecution in check in its zeal to
prosecute alleged torturers and war criminal.I purposely did not act as a defence counsel whose task is to break down
the witnesses, raise objection after objection and provide some excitement to
the otherwise staid proceedings.To
those who think I have been too sedate, well, I am not a clown, nor am I here
to badger the witnesses for you amusement.I am here as a friend of the Tribunal.

3.And as friend of the Tribunal, what questions I did ask of the 3
witnesses were, to my mind, very relevant.I admit I probably should have not pressed the point with PW3 Jameelah
about whether the beatings were for hours, or minutes, because, as succinctly
put by the Learned President, a beating is a beating.I am
grateful for that guidance.

4.It is indeed true.Torture is
torture, whether it is committed against a man or a woman, white, black,
yellow, brown or any colour in between, to a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Jew
(to paraphrase Gandhi).It does not
matter who does it or to whom it is done.Wrong is wrong.

5.But is it wrong in
international law?That’s the task on
the prosecution’s shoulder.They have to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 8 accused have indeed committed
torture.

6.Have they proven it beyond a reasonable doubt?Well, let’s break it down one by one.

7.The prosecution started off its case by bringing 3 witnesses to testify
under oath as to what happened to them.All 3 witnesses gave varying accounts of being taken/abducted, brought
to a facility under the command of American military and thereafter subjected
to various extreme conditions that the prosecution labels as torture.

8.First question:Can we believe
their account of what happened to them?The purpose of cross-examination (by defence counsel, or amicus in this
case) is to elicit the hidden facts that were not apparent at first blush
during the examination-in-chief by the prosecution.What was a very straightforward
story/account, under cross-examination can something reveal facets not apparent
at first glance.

9.We all were able to hear what 3 of the 5 witnesses said in this Tribunal
here.The other 2, Ali Shalal and
Rhuhel, we were not able to hear the words from their own mouth.Was Rhuhel, the boy who went to
Afghanistan to smoke ganja/marijuana with friends, telling the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth in his statutory declaration which is already
now before the Tribunal?We won’t really
know for sure.But more importantly, we
won’t get a chance to know for sure.Why, because we didn’t get to see how he reacts answering
questions, we didn’t get to listen to the words from his mouth with all the
nuances that can give us the cue as to whether he was a witness of true or
something else; and we didn’t get to ask him the tough questions that may
expand his story to give a whole different tenor to his testimony.That is the very purpose of
cross-examination.And unfortunately for
Rhuhel, his testimony is in the record without going through, if you like, the
testing fire of cross-examination.

10.For example, take the first witness Abbas Abid.He came, face all covered, and we first got
to know him as Chief Engineer with a dream for a big family.He wanted 15 children.He only has 5.By my count, that is big.By his count, not big enough.He then went on to tell us of what happened
to him, first at Al Muthanna Brigade
HQ, then at Al-Jadiria.Only during cross-examination did he reveal
that he was a government servant in the government of Saddam Hussein,
admittedly, not the nicest fellow to have walked the earth.Was that oversight deliberate?I don’t know.I do not wish to speculate.But
it does make me wonder what else was left out.Especially in his account about the being tortured.In examination-in-chief, he was identifying
this person and that person as Americans.When asked HOW did he actually do that, the answer eventually led to the
admission under the hood that was put over his head while he was tortured, he
could not identify whether the ones who tortured him were Americans or
not.He said this even during
re-examination by the prosecution.So
that is that for PW1.

11.For completeness sake, it is regrettable that the prosecution has not
provided the Court with any documentation linking with the Al Muthanna Brigade HQ, nor the Al-Jadiria facility as being
American controlled.I am minded that
judicial notice can be taken, but the above 2 facilities are not as famous as
Guantanamo which was clearly American.So from where I stand, there is not a shred of evidence that links
either Al Muthanna Brigade HQ,
nor the Al-Jadiria with the
Americans and the testimony of Abbas does not identify Americans as being the
perpetrators[1].In addition, there is also no medical report
tendered to confirm the injuries of Abbas.

12.I humbly submit that this Tribunal find that for the torture of Abbas,
sad as it may be, has not in any way been proven to be linked to the Americans
in any way by the prosecution.

13.With Jameelah, PW3, we have a strong woman, a respected woman in
the community, a widow who raised 3 children after the death of her husband in 1999.She is a proud Baath party member, and would
have provided money to the resistance if she had extra.Why was this not in her statement?She was very vocal, passionate and
overflowing (even to the extent of volunteering information after re-examination)
in her testimony, always hinting that what she said was merely the tip of the
iceberg, but never saying more.

14.Even the rapes alleged in the last paragraph of her Statutory Declaration
were made very generally as “Women have
suffered tremendously and many have been raped.”Upon further questioning, she admitted that
that is hearsay evidence and she did not in fact witness said rapes.So, was she tortured by the Americans?There are 2 exhibits to her Statutory
Declaration.The first is an extremely
faint document titled “Release form for detained civilians” with the
handwritten portions visible but not much else of the printed portion is
readable.The second is an ICRC
certification that she was detained from 13/1/2004 to 22/6/2004.No mentioned is made of where she was
detained.Other than her say so, we have
no proof that she was detained at an American facility.Her identification of her torturers as Americans
is also based on conjecture from the assumption that since she was in the American
part of Iraq, she was therefore assaulted by American nationals.This remains merely an assumption.There is no actual identification.

15.And speaking of identification, we have the other non-attending witness, Ali
Shalal.If his testimony in the
statutory declaration had been tendered as was done with Rhuhel’s one, that
would have been quite uneventful. But the prosecution did one up and linked it
to the photo of the hooded man standing on a box.Now that’s a problem.

16.The TRUTH is what fallible human courts are supposed to arrive at
by the whole trial process.One side
puts up a story, it is tested by various means and according to generally
accepted rules that are called procedure.They differ from one place to the next, but the binding thread in all of
them is that they are designed to try their best to ‘get to the truth’ in the
best possible manner.Witnesses are
humans.And they are subject to the same
human weaknesses as all of us.Exaggeration is one of them.We
have seen quite a few instances in this trial and the last one.

17.By linking, however subtly, the statutory declaration of Ali Shalal to
the newspaper cutting, by waving it in the air, the prosecution makes that
link.Now, there is a problem with such
a link.The problem is this:We cannot be too sure whether Ali Shalal is
indeed the man in the photo.Ali Shalal
himself cannot be certain he is the man in the photo.

18.So what?Does it matter?The prosecution went, very logically to say,
and I paraphrase here, “If it was not him, better, it means that this was done
to at least 2 persons” implying if more than 1 person were to have been treated
in this fashion, it bolsters the prosecution’s case.That is true.

19.But consider this.The possibility
of Ali Shalal NOT being the man in the picture raises a question mark over his
testimony, which unfortunately is only in the form of a statutory declaration
before this Tribunal.Is his testimony
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?We cannot ask him.Does it matter that his testimony be as
closest to the truth?Yes.Yes it does.Especially on issues like torture.

20.It is reported, yes in the New York Times, that he has identified with
that picture, saying that it is him.He
even puts that picture on his business cards.But one has to ask:If he was in
the hood, how would he know for sure if that picture was in fact of him?But more importantly, if there is a chance it
wasn’t him, is there any benefit he claims that he is the man in that
picture?Is there any benefit if he
exaggerates a little and say that person is he?

21.Why, of course there is a benefit.There is a big benefit.That is
the defining picture of Abu Ghraib.That
is the defining picture that turned the tide on the war on terror.That picture, if it’s YOU, will open doors
for you that you never knew existed.Doors
which lead to fame.Is Ali Shalal a
publicity hunter?We may never
know.Is Ali Shalal telling the truth?We never got to ask him.

22.The New York Times series of articles report that:

Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing
in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering.
His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph
that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a
cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms. He had
even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.

The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi. [Editors'
Note]

Military investigators had identified the man on the box as a different
detainee who had described the episode in a sworn statement immediately after
the photographs were discovered in January 2004, but then the man seemed to go
silent.

Mr. Qaissi had energetically filled the void, traveling abroad with slide
shows to argue that abuse in Iraq continued, as head of a group he called the
Association of Victims of American Occupation Prisons. ... This week, after the
online magazine Salon raised questions about the identity of the man in the
photograph, Mr. Qaissi and his lawyers insisted he was telling the truth.Certainly, he was at Abu Ghraib, and appears
with a hood over his head in some photographs that Army investigators seized
from

the computer belonging to Specialist Charles Graner, the soldier later
convicted of being the ringleader of the abuse.

However, he now acknowledges he is not the man in the specific photograph
he printed and held up in a portrait that accompanied the Times article. But he
and his lawyers maintain that he was photographed in a similar position and
shocked with wires and that he is the one on his business card. The Army says
it believes only one prisoner was treated in that way. "I know one thing,"
Mr. Qaissi said yesterday, breaking down in tears when reached by telephone.
"I wore that blanket, I stood on that box, and I was wired up and
electrocuted."

In the spring of 2004, Mr. Qaissi approached Muhammad Hamid al-Moussawi,
the deputy director of the Human Rights Organization of Iraq, and proposed that
the men set up a group for prisoners of the occupation, Mr. Moussawi said this
week. Yet Mr. Qaissi never claimed at the time that he had been the man in the
photograph, Mr. Moussawi recalled.

A journalist who interviewed Mr. Qaissi three times that May and June
about what happened at Abu Ghraib similarly said he never mentioned the pose or
the photograph. The journalist, Gert Van Langendonck, said Mr. Qaissi mentioned
the other cruelties he described in the Times profile.

A lawsuit Mr. Qaissi joined, filed on July 27, 2004, also made no
allegation that he was shocked with wires or forced to stand on a box.

... Mr. Qaissi seems to have first begun identifying himself as the
hooded man in the fall of 2004,

Soon, Mr. Qaissi was featured in numerous profiles, including in Der
Spiegel, reprinted by Salon, as well as on the PBS current affairs program
"Now," where he described being shocked: "It felt like my
eyeballs were coming out of my sockets." With his soft voice and
occasionally self-deprecating humor, he has impressed interviewers as affable
and credible. He told his story with a level of detail that separated it from
that of many others.And on this,
please see See Prosecution Bundle 3B, page 1188, para 32, line 3:- "As the
electric current entered my whole body, I felt as if my eyes were being forced
out and sparks flying out."

23.This all raises the question again:So what?So what if it was not
Ali Shalal in the photo.The photo
exists.Ah, but that is layman
talk.This is Tribunal of law.We talk law here also.And law is about facts, first and foremost.“It is easy to confuse photographs with
reality. To many of us, photographs are reality.”This also links later with my point on the movie
that was shown, “Taxi To The Dark Side”.

“We see the picture of the Hooded Man. We imagine the abuse. Quotes from
Clawman in the accompanying text confirms our worst suspicions about what
happened at Abu Ghraib. Our beliefs about the picture are confirmed – except
that we know nothing more than when we started. We have learned nothing. ...
One human rights worker suggested that it made no difference whether Clawman
was really the Hooded Man – that his testimony was no less valid. I do not
agree. Now we are talking about reality – not about photographs.
Clawman was a prisoner at Abu Ghraib. He was most likely subjected to abuse,
but whatever his account might be, it’s not the account of the man in the
picture. That man is Gilligan – not Clawman.”

24.We saw the movie “Taxi to the dark side”.We imagined reality as that.But
it’s not.That was a highly produced,
carefully edited movie to present a view which may not be the view that is near
the truth.It may even be a skewed
view.If it were unedited video, it
would be better.Of course, we would all
be sleeping, but for the purposes of video evidence in a court/tribunal of law,
unedited is better than edited.If maker
can come and give evidence about the video or photograph, that’s even
better.Because that would better help
us get to the truth.And that is
precisely why I made it a point to raise the doubt that there is a possibility
that Ali Shalal may not have been the man in the photo – but only after the
prosecution made that link.Without that
waving of the newspaper cutting, it would have been a very uneventful tendering
of a previous statutory declaration by a witness who cannot attend, I would
just stand up for a short point on the inherent dangers of hearsay evidence and
that would be it.

25.I move on now to Moazzam Begg, PW2.He exudes the confidence and serenity that
belie the treatment he had been through.Was he detained by the Americans?Of course he was.He was at
Guantanamo and Bagram for goodness sake.As with Abbas, it is most unfortunate that his testimony during
Examination-in-chief focused on his life starting at the point he was captured
and incarcerated.That gives such a
myopic view of a life.Moazzam is more
than his sufferings.During cross
examination we found out owned a bookstore, and had spent a few day at a
training camp in Afghanistan.Why had
these facts not been disclosed in his earlier statutory declaration made in
2009?They were already common knowledge
by then, having appeared in newspapers.We also learnt that at Guantanamo there are books, and while he did not
get to read current affairs, he was able to read Dickens and the first 5 Harry
Potter books.

26.I believe this is an opportune moment to view a video, if there is no
objections as to the type of medical care that is available at Guantanamo.I wish to air a short clip, not more than 15
minutes from the movie SICKO by Michael Moore which came out in 2007.The story concerns the American health care
system, and the movie is basically a scathing summary of what is wrong with
it.To make a point, Michael Moore got 3
rescue workers from the 9/11 incident and attempted to bring them to Guantanamo
Bay to try to get the healthcare they did not get back Stateside.He begins with the question:They say
that you can judge a society by how it treats those who are the worst off.But is the opposite true?That you can judge a society by how it treats
its best? part
10[2]
(start at time stamp 2:18) ... continue with part 11[3]
(stop at time stamp 4:40)

27.Yes, Amicus is submitting that Guantanamo is not all that bad.Based on that video.But then, how can we know the full story from
a mere 15-minute clip.How indeed.

28.In fact, can we really get the story from a 1 hour plus movie like “Taxi To The Dark Side”? It is a good movie, alright, documentary.But it has a narrative, and that narrative
has a purpose:To make us see the
Dilawar story.Is that the only story to
be told from Guantanamo?Of course
not.Does it prejudice the 8 accused?Yes.Of course it does.It makes it
look like all 8 of them are some horrible people.Does it tell the story of “WHY”?No it does not.Did I object to it being shown even when I
only had about an hour or so notice that the prosecution intended it to be
shown?Of course not.Because I am here to assist the Court, not
attack the prosecution’s case.I am here
to point out where the prosecution may be overstating something, or
understating, or not stating, or accidentally misstating it.So I do not object to it.I do not object to the fact that it shows
contrite, or seemingly contrite low-level soldiers blaming the situation,
blaming not being trained well enough before having to do interrogation, and
basically blaming the higher-ups for their, the soldier’s, own acts of harming
the prisoners under their care.

29.Anyone doing criminal law will know how accomplices will usually turn on one another upon being
caught, saying that the other one was the mastermind, and that he was the
innocent, unwitting, naive or stupid person who tagged along for the ride and
got entangled in the mess.Of course
we’ve heard of this.Of course the low
level people will point up and say, “Command Responsibility”.And people want to believe that those in command are omnipresent and omniscience.That’s really what command responsibility is
all about.The rogue soldier, the rogue
underling saying, “boo-hoo.Poor me.I am the victim for doing all these bad naughty things to those
people.It’s my boss’ fault”.Haven’t we heard that one before?Of course we want to ‘get’ the boss.That’s the marquee name.That’s the big fish.And so we close our eyes to the fact that
maybe, just maybe, the low-level soldier indeed was rogue, or nuts, or a
sadist, or whatever.Forget about him,
or her. Get the big fish.

30.So how does international law ‘get’ the big fish?By saying ‘command responsibility’.That’s the simple way out.That’s the magic phrase.From a standard of “what the superior
actually knew” at Nuremberg, it became “constructive knowledge” and “negligent
disregard” at Tokyo Tribunals, and Geneva Protocol I added “knowledge the
superior should have had” and “standards of negligence for not knowing.”[4]

31.That’s a little like cheating: moving the goalpost.And this totally disregards that fact that
America did not ratify Geneva Protocol 1[5]

32.Now why would I even bother talking about the United States of America
not ratifying Protocol I.Surely that
doesn’t matter right?Surely we can
catch it all under the big umbrella that is “customary international law”.Ah, that’s the other magic phrase.Just say it, and everything will be ok.But is that really the case?

33.Customary international law and jus
cogens are like the snake-oil of international law.It can cure everything.Sprinkle a little, and any situation can be
covered.Really?Does every country agree on the definition of
torture?For example the definition in
Article 1 of the 1984 CAT?Malaysia
doesn’t.I wonder why?But no matter, it’s customary international
law.That should fix everything.

34.Does it really?No.No it does not.When you think about it, international law
really boils down to TREATIES.What
countries, in their sovereign state decide to do when they are relating to
other countries.

35.International
law is basically what treaties say they are – forget
about jus cogens, forget about
customary international law.It is
treaties, i.e. what countries/States want to be bound by, in their absolute
discretion – and what more, it is only treaties that parties sign, ratify, and
don’t put reservations to that are binding.Each individual State is a sovereign nation.If it wishes to join the fold and become part
of the community of nations, logically, it has to make agreements, sign
treaties, with other nations, or join the normal general treaties that most
nations subscribe to, it’s like joining a club.You don’t have to.But if you do,
you agree to be bound by and adhere to the standards and norms of that
club.And by extending the club analogy,
there are various forms of memberships for nations, just as there are different
classes of nations at the United Nations.Some have veto.Others
don’t.Is it fair.Of course not.But without that veto, they wouldn’t join.Why?Because they had the big guns, called nuclear weapons, and if you don’t
give them the nice big chair and that loud megaphone, they won’t come to your
party and play nicely.

36.The very fact that any nation can choose to sign or not sign, and then
either ratify or not ratify, and lastly put in a reservation or accept the
treaty wholeheartedly is a clear indication, nay, it is proof positive that in
the realm of international relations, one thing is absolutely certain:All States come to the table as a
sovereign nation.They owe no other
nation anything when it comes to deciding in what manner and how exactly they
will join the community of nations.

37.Conscience guided by law and justice cannot turn a blind eye to the fact
that international law exists because each and every country in the world at
one point decided that, “yes, I do not want to be an island.I need to be part of the community of
nations, I will therefore fall in line and be part of it by accepting and
performing the obligations under it”.Treaties
are contracts.And they are written
down.What is not written down is not
agreed to.There are, of course, oral
treaties , which are envisaged by Vienna Convention Article 2(1)(a).This is basic contract law.This is basic treaty law.

38.Do permit me to quote from the Quran on this, from Surah Al-Maedah, verse
1 (translation by Yusuf Ali)[6]:

“O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto
you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named: But
animals of the chase are forbidden while ye are in the sacred precincts or in
pilgrim garb: for Allah doth command according to His will and plan.”

39.5:1 – fulfil obligations

40.Ah, but the wet-behind-the-ears international law student will ask:What about customary international law?What about jus cogens?Here’s the
painful answer:It does not mean a
thing.Not for international law that
relates to war, at least.For
international contracts and stuff involving money, yeah, people will play by
the general rules generally laid down.But ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.Especially war.

41.War is like a black hole.The
general theory of relativity posits that there are black holes, and in the
centre of black holes there is the singularity where the laws of physics cease
to exist[7].

42.War does that to laws.To international
laws even.From the 19th century until
World War I, States had sovereign rights to go to war for good reason, bad
reason or no reason.After World War I, under the
Covenant of the League of Nations, States were prohibited from going to war in
certain circumstances but allowed to go to war in other circumstances[8].After
World War II, under the UN Charter, States are prohibited from
unilateral threat or use of force except in self-defence.

43.Our submission?After 9/11,
after the war on terror, the law now, the international law now is: “torture is
ok”.

45.We all want to say torture is bad.But given the right circumstances, most of us, if not all of us would say,
yeah, “Waterboard him.Beat the crap out
of him.”I couldn’t ask Jameelah that
question on Tuesday.So I say it now,
from the Bar.Given the right
circumstances, I’d probably say ok to torture too.I’d probably torture too.I am human.And for those of us who have searched our souls and are honest in this
room, I think you’ll say the same too.

46.But let’s get back to the assertion we made:Torture is now ok after 9/11, after the war
on terror.The world has changed.International law has changed.For the better or for the worst it doesn’t
matter.The legal point is:it has changed.

47.The prosecution’s view of war is wonderful actually.You go to war, but you have all these
rules.Rules that all parties agree
to.Rules that all parties will
obey.Very idealistic.Very naive.

48.Wars used to only be fought by uniformed armies on a fixed battlefield –
sometimes called a war theatre.There
was place where you fought.That’s
where we get the words like Marathon and Waterloo, and we remember places like
Gettysburg and Dunkirk.There was a
fixed place with a fixed uniformed army.

49.The laws of war that the prosecution has so thoroughly explained to us
yesterday works.Yes.For those wars.For those situations.

50.Today, wars are being fought in realms.Iran, just last month was a victim of a cyber attack[10].
It had to disconnect several of its main Persian Gulf oil terminals from the
Internet.Yes, it’s a New York Times
reference again.When you have an army
which declares itself to be an army who is against you, it makes sense to have
rules of war.It makes sense to afford
the other side the ‘courtesy’ and respect given to warriors.The code of Bushido for the samurai comes to
mind.

51.That was a different age.As an
aside, computer hacking used to be the realm of actual geeks who were smart
people who put in the hours to learn the ins-and-out of computers.They knew that the knowledge and skill came
at a price.And there was a sense of a
code for them.Nowadays, any fool who
can get his hands on a scripting tool can pretend to be a hacker.In the same way, to be a warrior in days of
yore, you had to have skills.You had to
have undergone rigorous training which would have, in some ways instilled in
you a sense of honour.And having a code
of conduct for war, the ‘laws of war’ if you like, made sense.All the rules of conduct of war was for a
different time.

52.But when you start having civilian aeroplanes being used as weapons, when
you start having bombs in shoes, when you start bombing Hawaii on a Sunday
morning, when you start putting people in gas chambers by the millions, all
bets are off. That’s when the
laws of war change.That’s when you
start becoming, “the destroyer of worlds” as Oppenheimer sadly wrote.That’s when you create something like
Nuremberg which was, let’s not deny it, victor’s justice.And in the words of a former panel member of
this Tribunal,

“In full view of
international opinion at Nuremberg, the Allied powers, in an agreement drafted
decided to try the leaders, including political and military, of the Axis
powers.There were prosecutors in full
military dress of the Allied powers addressing members of the Tribunal.And no issue of bias was raised.Judges were all from the Allied
countries.And not a single issue raised
of affection or bias, even doubt.”

53.International law changes after wars.That’s our point.And after the
war on terror, after 9/11, torture is ok.

54.For the small point about whether there was breach of United States
municipal law – John Yoo and the documents I have quoted in Defence
Document Volume 3 have answered that.Let me just give the highlights:

a.The conclusion reached by Michael Stokes Paulsen in his Yale Law Journal
article, at page 81 at Volume 3 is,

“what is the force of international law, for the United States, and who
determines that force and interprets and applies international law for the
United States? For all the complexities and intricacies of the details, the
summary answer is remarkably straightforward: under the U.S. Constitution,
international law is only “law” for the United States when the U.S.
Constitution makes it so or empowers U.S. constitutional officials to invoke it
in support of their powers. Wherever the Constitution does make it so, such law
is always controlled by the (sometimes conflicting) interpretations of the law
by U.S. actors and never by the interpretations of international or foreign
tribunals. And such international-law-as-U.S.-law is always subordinate to the
superior constitutional powers of U.S. constitutional actors; it may be
superseded, as a matter of U.S. law, almost at will.

The force of international law, as a body of law, upon the United States
is thus largely an illusion. On matters of war, peace, human rights, and torture—
some of the most valued
matters on which international law speaks—its voice may be silenced by contrary
U.S. law or shouted down by the exercise of U.S. constitutional powers that
international law has no binding domestic-law power to constrain. International
law, for the United States, is international policy and politics.”

b.The testimony of the same person before the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Court of the US Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on May 13, 1999 which can be found at page 372 of
Amicus Bundle Volume 3.In brief, he
says,

ii.at page 376, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, at
point 2, “Second, even if one
disagreed with the statutory ... constitutional issues”

iii.page 377, 3rd and 4th paragraph: “To be sure ...

iv.page 378, point 3.“Third
... ’ – whole paragraph.

55.Let’s not belabour the point.We
are not happy with torture being used.Full stop.In this room, I can
say that.Everyone can say that.But there is a world outside this room.And outside this room,

a.You don’t catch a suspected murderer or rapist or robber or terrorist and
give him tea and fruit.You give him
Harry Potter, but not tea and fruit.You
get information that you need from him so that this world in this room can
continue.Yes, the needs of the many
outweigh the rights of the few.Sad to
say, but that’s true.

b.Torture is being used, has been used, has
always been used.Even in times of
peace.Anne Boleyn lost her head history
say due to a confession extracted through torture.One might even say Christianity started with
the torture of one guy on the cross.And
let’s not talk about what people all over the world have alleged their police
forces have done while “investigating crimes”.

c.The prosecution has alleged that detention without trial is torture.It has been said of Guantanamo[11],

“Previously, they [referring to the USA and Britain] criticised Malaysia
for purportedly being cruel by detaining people without trial. But they are the
ones doing it now.They have probably
just realised that in certain situations, Malaysia had to detain people without
trial. But what they are doing in Guantanamo Bay is even more cruel by
passing laws allowing the torture of detainees,”

56.We live in the real world.Not ONLY
in this very nice room only where there’s plenty of food, gratis, downstairs.

57.I apologise if what I have said have hurt ... someone.Anyone.I have tried to be a good friend to the Tribunal.

58.And as a final note, I wish to say I am heartened that all 3 witnesses
who came here have found the courage and strength to move on, to be of good
cheer, and that was evident during their time testifying, as you may have all
seen.

Dated this 10
May 2012

(signed)

_____________________

Jason Kay

Amicus Curiae

Amici Curia team:

Dr. Mohd
Hisham bin Mohd Kamal

Dr. Abbas
Hardani

Galoh
Nursafinas Samsudin (Ms)

Soo Kok Weng

[1]Short v Iran, as
referenced at pages 224-225, Public International Law, A Practical Approach
(3rd edition)

[7] At the center of a black hole lies the singularity, where matter is
crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong, and
spacetime has infinite curvature. Here it's no longer meaningful to speak of
space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and
time cease to exist as we know them. - http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html